From 63.7% to 110.8% target attainment.
Two underperforming sales teams. The same headline problem. Two different underlying constraints.
A programme previously led by our founder within a UK B2B sales organisation. The client is not named.
Two sales teams were underperforming against target.
Results in both teams depended on a handful of strong performers. Everyone else missed target regularly, and the annual number was exposed. From the outside the two teams looked like the same problem.
The same headline problem did not mean the same underlying issue.
Pipeline creation, sales execution and manager reinforcement were inconsistent in both teams, but not to the same degree or for the same reasons. In one, execution discipline and reinforcement were the constraint. In the other, it was the quality and value of the opportunities being worked. Capability was not the primary constraint in either.
Build around the constraint, not the symptom.
Both teams received one-to-one coaching alongside structured sales training, supported by repeatable frameworks they could keep using. Targeted data and LinkedIn Sales Navigator focused prospecting on the accounts most likely to convert, and relationship building was prioritised over volume of activity.
- One-to-one coaching
- Structured sales training
- Repeatable frameworks
- Targeted data
- LinkedIn Sales Navigator
- Relationship building
- Manager reinforcement
Managers were involved throughout. The work was built around live opportunities and the accounts the teams already held, not generic case material.
The results.
Actual sales above the expected level had the teams continued converting target at their previous rate.
Broad-based improvement
Performance improved across the commercial scorecard following structured coaching, training, account focus and reinforcement.
Better business, not more business
The team completed fewer transactions but shifted towards larger, better-qualified opportunities. The constraint was not activity volume. It was the quality and value of the opportunities being pursued.
21 weeks later, performance remained above the previous baseline.
Performance had not drifted back, which suggests the frameworks, coaching habits and account relationships outlasted the delivery period rather than lifting results only while the programme was running.
How the impact was measured.
Expected sales were calculated by applying each team's pre-enablement target-attainment rate to its post-enablement targets. Actual sales were then compared with that expected baseline. The difference was approximately £417k.
This was a before-and-after analysis rather than a controlled experiment. The figure represents performance above the pre-enablement baseline and should not be interpreted as proof that enablement was the sole cause of the uplift.
The commercial detail behind this programme, including the measures used and the movement in each, can be shared under NDA on a call.
Same symptom. Different constraint.
That's why we diagnose before we prescribe.
Find the constraint. Fix what matters. Measure the impact.
Book a Performance Conversation